Age differences in locomotion of two subtropical galaginae
- 68 Downloads
The locomotor behaviour ofGalago senegalensis andG. crassicaudatus (Primates: Lorisidae) was quantified in an 11-month field study in the Northern Transvaal of South Africa. This paper assesses the distinction between the behaviour of adults, and that of infants at the age when they first began foraging independently, taking into account seasonal variations in adult behaviour. Infants of both species differ significantly from adults in the types of locomotion they use, postures, activity, support use, height of observation and tree use. While all these factors are inter-connected, it is concluded that infants exploit a quantitatively different part of the arboreal habitat from adults, because of factors such as locomotor maturation and gross body size. Dietary differences are also possible but the present study cannot establish or deny this possibility.
KeywordsBody Size Seasonal Variation Field Study Animal Ecology Locomotor Behaviour
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bearder, S. K. &G. A. Doyle, 1974. Ecology of bushbabies,Galago senegalensis andGalago crassicaudatus, with some notes on their behaviour in the field. In:Prosimian Biology,R. D. Martin,G. A. Doyle &A. C. Walker (eds.), Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 109–130.Google Scholar
- Crompton, R. H., 1980.Galago locomotion. Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard Univ., Cambridge.Google Scholar
- ----, in press. Foraging, habitat structure and locomotion in two species ofGalago. In:Foraging in Non-human Primates,J. Cant & P. Rodman (eds.), Columbia Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Doyle, G. A., 1979. Development of behaviour in prosimians. In:The Study of Prosimian Behaviour,G. A. Doyle &R. D. Martin (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 157–205.Google Scholar
- Nie, N. N., C. H. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner &D. H. Bent, 1977.Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
- Pough, F. H., 1973. Lizard energetics and diet.Ecology, 54(4): 837–844.Google Scholar